[Health] The Infectious Diseases Thread

[LawBeefaroni]

[Deleted]

Maybe "controversial" because the data is largely suspect and most likely motivated by financial gain?

[Ænima]

Someone really needs to read up on confirmation bias.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Maybe "controversial" because the data is largely suspect and most likely motivated by financial gain?

Fair enough. Post deleted (so you may want edit yours, too).

EDIT: The more I thought about this, the more it still rubs me the wrong way.

One needn't support anything stated by the Kern county doctors to support their ability to state it in a free and open society. The notion of an oligarchic corporate entity keeping duplicitous WHO videos with Tedros Adhanom blatantly shilling for Chairman Xi up on Youtube while censoring US doctors for their dissent from WHO orthodoxy is undeniably repugant and anti-American. So fuck Google and everything they stand for.

[malchior]

All this reopening is just going to make a new flood of deaths and a new lock down and worse problems. Heck CNN right now has people saying exactly that. Georgia is supposed to have a lot more deaths because of it.

The right word right now is likely or probably. We don't know everything we can about this virus yet to make 'dead accurate' predictions. That doubt is being used like a policy can opener to run population level experiments on our nation.

Cite? Because it seems kinda silly and highly unscientific to assume the colossal difference between COVID-19 deaths in New York vs. the most populous state in the union was solely because the state of California was locked down one day earlier than New York.

The dates listed there aren't correct. New York locked down on March 22nd. It was only announced on March 20th.

I'd also add on to the calendar effect by saying that calling it a single factor is probably inaccurate. We don't have basic pieces of data to build a rock-solid model. We don't know origin. We don't know when it broke out specifically. We do know is it definitely spreads person to person. However, we don't know enough about its contagiousness. We don't know all its effect on the human body. We don't know all the transmission vectors. Just the other day they found the coronavirus on air pollution particles in Italy. Perhaps the 2nd order effect that pollution decreased due to lock downs helped prevent spread. Maybe not. We don't know so much. That lack of data has led to the current policy. Broad lock downs are crude policy aimed at this lack of data. If we had more data we would have more arrows in our policy quiver. Getting back to the calendar effect, locking down early during exponential growth also could have made huge differences but until we have more data to analyze we can't even do proper post-mortems on the response.

[em2nought]

Once there's a smaller pool of susceptible people(i.e. they've died) there should be fewer deaths. But there will still be deaths because it's nature. People get diseases as time goes by and that will make them more likely to get this virus. People not getting treatment for their other diseases for this last month may make the total death greater as they'll become more susceptible. They might just die from lack of treating what they've got now virus or no virus. I don't think most people understand the concept of flattening the curve actually meaning lots of steady deaths for a longer period of time.

That's not even talking about second waves or mutations.

...and if you're really good at protecting you and yours who are susceptible hopefully they can get to the end of the curve.

[gbasden]

Cite? Because it seems kinda silly and highly unscientific to assume the colossal difference between COVID-19 deaths in New York vs. the most populous state in the union was solely because the state of California was locked down one day earlier than New York.

The Bay Area counties where the majority of identified cases seem to have started locked down on March 17th, even earlier than the rest of the state.

[YellowKing]

It’s worth noting that when looking at shutdown order dates, many states were already taking measures weeks beforehand. For instance, even though NC’s official stay at home order wasn’t until March 30, there were voluntary stay at home orders in early March. I know I had already started working from home by the second week in March, and the governor had already put bans on large gatherings, etc.

[stessier]

Similarly, saying "we're open" doesn't really mean that either. There are a number of businesses that have chosen not to or have remained drive through/curb side pickup despite being allowed to do more (at least in my area).

[morlac]

All this reopening is just going to make a new flood of deaths and a new lock down and worse problems. Heck CNN right now has people saying exactly that. Georgia is supposed to have a lot more deaths because of it.

In my hood I would say 90% of the places that are allowed to open still have not. Longhorns was the only non local spot allowing inside dining. Them and my favorite hole in wall bar....er restaurant were the only ones I saw fully open. No gyms, a third of nail/hair places were open. So despite the Governors best efforts most buisness are staying closed.

[morlac]

All this reopening is just going to make a new flood of deaths and a new lock down and worse problems. Heck CNN right now has people saying exactly that. Georgia is supposed to have a lot more deaths because of it.

In my hood I would say 90% of the places that are allowed to open still have not. Longhorns was the only non local spot allowing inside dining. Them and my favorite hole in wall bar....er restaurant were the only ones I saw fully open. No gyms, a third of nail/hair places were open. So despite the Governors best efforts most buisness are staying closed.

[Unagi]

A sign of true leadership.

[Max Peck]

I broke down and ordered one of these from an Etsy shop, except I went with the "Keep calm and wash your hands" option.

[Daehawk]

Been looking at these two.

[morlac]

Been looking at these two.

Haha. One for me and one for the kid. Links please?

[Smoove_B]

Just do a search for "neck gaiter". They have them on Amazon.

[noxiousdog]

In my hood I would say 90% of the places that are allowed to open still have not. Longhorns was the only non local spot allowing inside dining. Them and my favorite hole in wall bar....er restaurant were the only ones I saw fully open. No gyms, a third of nail/hair places were open. So despite the Governors best efforts most buisness are staying closed.

We are going to be restricted to 25% capacity for a while even on things that are open.

[LawBeefaroni]

In my hood I would say 90% of the places that are allowed to open still have not. Longhorns was the only non local spot allowing inside dining. Them and my favorite hole in wall bar....er restaurant were the only ones I saw fully open. No gyms, a third of nail/hair places were open. So despite the Governors best efforts most buisness are staying closed.

We are going to be restricted to 25% capacity for a while even on things that are open.

Bombshells will be open. Or at least that's what the RICK news ticker told me this morning.

[Skinypupy]

On April 2, I took a picture of my odometer because it was at 44,444 (which I found amusing, for some reason). Had to venture out and pick up some new contacts today, and it's sitting at at 44,460.

I've driven 16 miles total in the past 4 weeks, down from around 30 miles/day.

[MHS]

On April 2, I took a picture of my odometer because it was at 44,444 (which I found amusing, for some reason). Had to venture out and pick up some new contacts today, and it's sitting at at 44,460.

I've driven 16 miles total in the past 4 weeks, down from around 30 miles/day.

I had my oil changed on 2-21-20, and they always put the sticker saying I should get it changed at [X] miles, with X=current mileage+3000. So I know that on 2-21-20, I was at 7186 miles. I'm currently at 7312 and that's with 2 trips to and from the airport (about 60 miles RT) thrown in there.

[Jeff V]

My odometer added about 150 miles....today. And that's one car, the other will add another 40.

[gameoverman]

Here's an amusing video that sums up much of the various coronavirus advice and recommendations that has been provided

That was good. I liked how baking a cake counts as multiple subjects, and I liked how she kept the humor going all the way to the end. Sometimes videos like this are front loaded with all the best stuff and then sort of fizzle out, not this one.

Once there's a smaller pool of susceptible people(i.e. they've died) there should be fewer deaths.

A quick search gave me a number of just over 51 million people in the US age 65 or over. So if we were to consider those people 'susceptible' then the virus would need to kill MILLIONS of people in just that age range to reduce that particular population enough that there would start to be fewer deaths in that age range. I don't think it's a good idea to place hopes on the virus killing enough people so that the virus starves itself for more victims. For that to happen the situation has to be even more cataclysmically farked up than it already is. If that happens no one will care about the virus anymore, just finding food to eat will be enough of a challenge.

[Defiant]

A quick search gave me a number of just over 51 million people in the US age 65 or over. So if we were to consider those people 'susceptible' then the virus would need to kill MILLIONS of people in just that age range to reduce that particular population enough that there would start to be fewer deaths in that age range.

Also consider that almost half of Americans have heart disease, another factor that would make one more susceptible.

[dbt1949]

I know I personally am sitting here waiting to die of something.

[Isgrimnur]

Might as well try to keep yourself busy while you’re waiting.

[dbt1949]

I'm accumulating Trump antibodies.

[The Meal]

For when your sickness is as much mental as physical...

LOL, you might laugh but I ordered a set with my hockey team logo today. 'Cause...why not.

$25 for 3! The NHL doesn't sell *anything* that cheaply! You know the league's in trouble when they're practically giving away the merch.

[dbt1949]

I finally ordered some not as fancy as those masks. Whenever they letup on the lockdown everybody is going to be expected to wear them. <sigh>
At our governor's daily meeting today he says that when restaurants open up people have to wear masks. He left it like that. Finally reporter asked him how people were supposed to eat and he said after they got their food they could take their masks off.
I wonder how long he waited in anticipation for that question?
After the banks open their lobbies how many masked people are going to be robbers?

[Zarathud]

Mom made my mask out of fabric with Porgs on it.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I finally ordered some not as fancy as those masks. Whenever they letup on the lockdown everybody is going to be expected to wear them. <sigh>
At our governor's daily meeting today he says that when restaurants open up people have to wear masks. He left it like that. Finally reporter asked him how people were supposed to eat and he said after they got their food they could take their masks off.
I wonder how long he waited in anticipation for that question?
After the banks open their lobbies how many masked people are going to be robbers?

As Dr. John Lee observes in The Spectator article below, the science for compelling people to wear masks in public remains more than a wee bit shonky to say the least, so it likely won't matter anyway:

Do face masks work?

To think about this in relation to face masks, you first need to have a handle on just how small viruses are. A human hair is about a 10th of a millimeter thick. A typical bacterium (such as the human pathogens E. coli or S. aureus) comes in at about one thousandth of a millimeter, so you could line a hundred up across the width of a hair. A coronavirus particle is about 10 times smaller still, so a thousand would fit across a hair. This extreme smallness was instrumental in the discovery of viruses in the 19th century: they were the infective agents, left in solutions that had been passed through ‘ultrafilters’ which had removed all other known pathogens.

So to filter out viruses effectively you need a filter with a very fine mesh indeed, even assuming that all the air goes through the filter. And you need to think about which way the air is going: breathing in (the idea being to protect you) or breathing out (ostensibly to protect others if you have the virus).

A recent study looked microscopically at pore sizes in low-cost face masks of the types common in developing countries such as Nepal, made from various cloth materials. Here’s a sample they showed in the study.

They found pore sizes of roughly one to five human hair widths — the pore sizes got slightly bigger after washing. So in relation to viruses, these masks are doing little, except possibly reassuring their wearers.

...

What about protecting others? Surgeons wear masks mainly to protect their patients from particulate and potentially infective matter falling out of their noses, mouths, mustaches and beards into a patient’s open. We’re talking about big particles here (human hair width) and bacterial infections, not viruses. Even for this situation, which is universally observed, it is surprisingly difficult to generate watertight scientific data about the effectiveness of surgical masks in preventing bacterial infections. For viral infections there is little data, but again, the pores allow viruses through and much of the air you breathe out goes around the side. When a person is infectious with a virus it is estimated that they may shed one hundred billion virus particles a day — that works out at about 10 million per breath. A mask won’t stop you putting these particles into the air around you. In fact, with a damp mask you’ll be blowing aerosols and larger particles sideways, directly at your socially distanced colleagues six feet away. And if wearing a mask tempts you to feel that you’re not going to infect anyone else, you may also be less likely to observe the six-feet rule. So does wearing a mask protect others if you’re infectious? There’s little direct evidence to say that it does, and quite a lot of straightforward reasoning to suggest it doesn’t.

As you might imagine, you can find an awful lot more detail on all this. A recent, non-peer-reviewed review article concludes with a call for widespread mask use, including regulatory enforcement. But the evidence it presents seems very weak for such a strong call, and conflates laboratory, clinical and community studies. There are mask filtration studies; papers describing small, uncontrolled situations, many of which have heavily qualified conclusions (but nevertheless call for widespread measures on the basis of their slim evidence); speculative sociological studies often based in Asia; and ubiquitous modeling which appears to support the conclusions, but is based on non-real-world assumptions about mask ‘efficacy’ and mask ‘adherence’. A multiplication of inconclusive studies does not enhance the evidence base.

The point is: does any of what is out there add up to a watertight case for compelling people to wear masks in public or at work (outside a healthcare setting)? The threshold for compulsion must surely be higher than ‘maybe’ and ‘perhaps’. But if it really is the case that the threshold for regulatory compulsion is being approached, it should be a simple matter for our scientific advisers to present it to us and allow time for it to be critically discussed in relation to a real-world setting, before government imposes measures upon us all.

That other countries may have taken action says things about those countries’ attitudes to open scrutiny of evidence-based decision-making, and their populations’ attitudes to compliance and compulsion. It says nothing about the validity of the measures. Coronavirus is not a reason for us to accept arbitrary impositions or abandon our traditions of rational discourse. The West’s record in these matters is one of our great strengths — its preservation allows us to deal better with crises, especially crises like coronavirus, where there is much more to consider than just the virus itself.

[em2nought]

I "need" that Guy Fawkes neck gaiter.

[noxiousdog]

I call your random opinion piece, and raise you a peer reviewed study.

[Paingod]

I call your random opinion piece, and raise you a peer reviewed study.

... said the OO community for the thousandth time.

[coopasonic]

Less seriously....

I just saw a Colbert clip where he was talking about malls reopening and saying it would be good for stores that are focused on social distancing like Forever 21 Feet Apart and Gamestop.

It took a second, and then it burned a little, but I'm good with it.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I call your random opinion piece, and raise you a peer reviewed study.

OK... but we aren't playing poker here. Believe me, I very much hope mask-usage does help reduce transmission of this disease. But a study of disposable surgical and P2 masks that does not even address the washable/reusable cloth masks many are now relying upon -- largely due to the lack of availability of disposable surgical and P2 masks -- still does not equate to watertight evidence for the efficacy of compelling people to wear such masks in public to reduce transmission of the novel coronavirus.

[Blackhawk]

The article above seems to be cherry picking, and the linked study (if I'm reading it correctly) was limited to extended close-contact (within a household.) Homemade masks aren't going to stop individual viruses from sneaking through, but they can reduce the droplets that carry them. Enough to prevent infection? No. Enough to reduce infection? Maybe. Enough to reduce a pandemic if compliance is high? Those tiny percentages of a percent add up, so maybe. I don't know if any studies have been done of the impact they actually have in this kind of situation or not, though. Without hard data to go on, 'maybe' becomes "can't hurt, might help."

Those aren't the only factors, though. Putting on the mask also has a psychological effect on people. It reminds them, constantly, that something is different. It causes them to act differently as they're more aware. It reminds them to keep their distance. It reminds them to wash their hands. It reminds them to watch what they handle. When they see them on others, that's further reinforcement. For people not used to paying attention to such things, it also keeps habitual scratching fingers away from noses.

It's also a morale booster. Allowing people to do something to fight back, even if it is useless, does a lot for peoples' confidence and spirits, which is also important. Compare that to WWII. Many of the patriotic home front drives during WWII weren't nearly as effective or necessary as people were told they were at supporting the war effort, but keeping people be active and involved had a real impact on the economy and morale during a time of fear and hopelessness. They felt like they were fighting back against the thing they feared, and that helped. It kept people from giving in to fear and frustration, and that helped to keep the country humming.

Hell, I'd bet there's even a small economy boost from the (possibly billions?) of dollars spent on masks, much of it going to home crafters.

Also, it makes it easier to identify the selfish assholes.

Bringing all of those things together makes masks a pretty solid win-win.

[Jeff V]

It's also a morale booster.

I would counter it fosters a false sense of bravado; people thinking they're armored-up against the disease and scoff at the little virus arrows bouncing off harmlessly. This encourages to ignore the more important concept of social distancing.

As to the whole efficacy thing, healthcare workers are "armored up" far better than grocery store shoppers, and they are still getting infected. There probably needs to be an addendum to the "face masks in public places" requirement that states personal masks need to be imprinted with something of nominal entertainment value so they would at least be good for something.

[Blackhawk]

Healthcare workers aren't exactly in the same situation as shoppers at Wal-Mart. I'm no epidemiologist, but I'd be willing to bet that healthcare workers are faced with much higher concentrations in their daily duties than people are likely to see on the soup aisle.

And it may bring on a false sense of security. And yet I feel that my points are valid, too. That means some cancelling out of each other, and yet I believe (lacking actual data) that the pros still outweigh the cons.

We won't know for sure if it helped for another decade. Maybe.

[ImLawBoy]

It seems that the medical/scientific community has changed from anti-mask wearing due to the false sense of security to pro-mask wearing. I'm going to go with the medical/scientific consensus over Jeff's concerns.

A while back on twitter I saw someone wearing a mask that had small penises all over it. She said that if anyone commented on it, she would say "If you're close enough to see them, then you're too close. Back off." (Or something to that effect.)

[Anonymous Bosch]

I'm going to go with the medical/scientific consensus over Jeff's concerns.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
- Michael Crichton, MD.

[Combustible Lemur]

Keri sent me this yesterday

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk